Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: multifariousness Page 5 of about 1,538 results (0.002 seconds)

Apr 13 1961 (HC)

Deo Sansthan Chinchwad and ors. Vs. Chintaman Dharnidhar Deo and anr.

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : AIR1962Bom214; (1961)63BOMLR692; ILR1962Bom101

..... proper steps to assert their claim in the land acquisition proceedings.(3) on these pleadings, several issues were framed. the trial court held that the suit was not bad for multifariousness inasmuch as both the plaintiffs claimed a right to receive rs. 150 out of the vasool from the village of chincholi by grant and judicial decisions, whereas plaintiff no. 1 ..... . 2 came to be struck off from the suit as he had been removed from the office. the other contentions of the defendants were that the suit was bad for multifariousness, that plaintiff had no title to receive rs. 417-4-0 out of the vasool of the village of chincholi; that the prior proceedings were not binding on defendant no .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 09 1998 (HC)

Kantamani Seeta Ramachandra Rao and Others Vs. Meesana Mohana Rao and ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 1999(1)ALD177; 1999(1)ALT154

..... . the trial court settled the following issues for trial:1. whether the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the suit agreement of sale; 2. whether suit is bad for multifariousness; and 3. whether the suit is barred by time. the plaintiff got himself examined as pw1 and got marked exs.al to a7. the 1st defendant got himself examined as ..... . on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record the trial court held that the suit is not barred by time, that the suit is not bad of multifariousness and that the plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of the suit agreement with respect to item no.1 only. the trial court held that the time is not the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 26 1921 (PC)

Bolisetti Mamayya Vs. Kolla Kottayya, Kommurri Ramayya Rice Mill Compa ...

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1921Mad616; (1921)ILR44Mad810

..... the petition to find out whether the objection of multifarionsness is sustainable. in the present case, on the allegations in the creditor's petition as it stands, the objection of multifariousness cannot be sustained. that ground of appeal is therefore rejected.9. now, as regards the two other contentions the learned district judge, as pointed out already, might have distinctly stated ..... of inconvenience should not be given too much weight. as i stated, the test is whether if the application was treated as a suit, that suit would be bad for multifariousness, that is, for misjoinder of different causes of action against different defendants. if no such objection can be successfully advanced a single application is, in my opinion, maintainable in that .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 22 1926 (PC)

Alamuri Punniah Vs. Sagarajee Kasarmal Firm Tenal and ors.

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1927Mad124; (1926)51MLJ712

..... to the length of laying down that, if the acts of insolvency are not joint but separate, a single petition would not lie, though it would not be bad for multifariousness, when treated as a suit. if the act of insolvency committed by each partner would become of the circumstances affording a cause of action against him, it has still to ..... unsustainable merely because they have not committed a joint act of insolvency. the test is, whether if the application were treated as a suit the suit would be bad for multifariousness, as was held in mamayya v. k.r. rice mill co. 40 m l j 570. in that case, the members of a joint hindu family were sought to be .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 16 1936 (PC)

Mahant Ramdhan Puri Vs. Chaudhury Lachmi Narain

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1937)39BOMLR363

..... inconvenience and expense caused to the defendants. the written statement of the present appellants (as is common in india) contained a plea that the suit was bad for misjoinder or multifariousness, but their lordships have not been satisfied that at any time before the commencement of the trial any appropriate and serious application was made to the court upon the face .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1958 (HC)

Sajjanam Wadla China Rajayya Vs. Chappal Venkateshwar Rao

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : AIR1959AP349

..... to bring fresh suits, as has been the case in 'the three authorities cited by the advocate for the defendants. when the court insisted that the suit was bad for multifariousness, the pleader for the plaintiff merely expressed his willingness to continue the suit as against the 2nd defendant,thereupon the court did not order the suit to 'be withdrawn but ..... two sets of defendants for recovery of money due to him by the defendants on babi khata accounts.a preliminary objection was taken to the plaint on the ground of multifariousness. the trial court expressed the opinion that the defect in the frame of the suit was there and actually ordered that the plaintiff should elect as to which of the ..... remaining, names. the plaintiff is given time of three days to produce fresh plaints.'there is no controversy that if the trial judge had dismissed the suit as framed, for multifarious ness and the plaintiff had brought fresh separate suits against each of the defendants, he would not have been handicapped by the provisions of rule 2, of order 23, order ..... the principal debtor.5. it would thus be seen that their lordships were dealing with a case which was properly constituted as originally framed and in which' no question of multifariousness was involved. had it been allowed to proceed as such it might have resulted iii a decree against the four trustees or any of them. the plaintiffs by having their .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 09 2004 (HC)

Bandaru Ramana and ors. Vs. Gedela Appalanaidu Alias Naidubabu and ors ...

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2004(6)ALD413; 2004(6)ALT500

..... , but not the suit properties, which she parted even by 1943. with regard to all other issues viz., whether the court has pecuniary jurisdiction; whether the suit is bad for multifariousness etc, the trial court answered all other issues in affirmative. however, as the main issue was answered in favour of the defendants, the trial court ultimately considering the decisions cited ..... dated 10.4.1973 is true, valid and binding on the plaintiffs? 4. whether this court has pecuniary jurisdiction to maintain this suit? 5. whether this suit is bad for multifariousness? 6. whether the plaintiffs are entitled for possession of the plaint schedule land? 7. whether the plaintiffs are entitled to profits as to what amount? 8. to what relief?14 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 20 2005 (HC)

Chowdri Kalyan Chand and ors. Vs. V.R. Dwarknath and ors.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(1)ALD583; 2006(1)ALT215

..... two or more causes of action accrued against the defendants separately when such defendants are not jointly liable is bad for misjoinder of defendants and causes of action, technically called multifariousness. in a suit of contract, strangers to such contract who have distinct and separate interests cannot be joined as defendants rangayya v. subramanya air 1918 mad. 681 (f.b.).25 ..... of calcutta v. radhakrishna : air1952cal222 , the calcutta high court held that a single suit by a corporation for arrears of rent against different owners of subdivided premises is bad for multifariousness.15. where two or more persons have been joined as defendants in one suit in contravention of the provisions of order 1 rule 3, there is misjoinder of defendants.16 .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 20 2005 (HC)

Gudapati Seetharamaiah @ Seetharama Rao and ors. Vs. State of A.P.

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : 2006(2)ALD144

..... action against another plaintiff in respect of another land. it was further held that the learned subordinate judge took a correct view that the suit is bad on account of multifariousness. however, it was observed that the learned subordinate judge should have given the plaintiffs election as to which the single plaintiff would be permitted to continue the suit and which ..... establish that they have perfected their title by adverse possession.23. before adverting to the question as to whether the suit of the plaintiffs is bad for mis-joinder of multifarious causes of action, it is necessary to have a glance at order ii rule 3 cpc, which reads as under:joinder of causes of action :(1) save as otherwise provided ..... this court to remit the matter to the trial court, since the finding of the trial court on issue no. 7 that the suit is bad for mis-joinder of multifariousness, does not suffer from any infirmity.27. the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs. .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 23 1917 (PC)

Afzal Shah and anr. Vs. Lachmi NaraIn and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Reported in : AIR1918All425; (1918)ILR40All7

..... question the finding of law on which their suit was dismissed by the court below. the pleas in the memorandum of appeal are that the suit is not bad for multifariousness, that it was maintainable as framed and that the reliefs claimed therein could have teen granted in one suit against all the defendants. it is unnecessary for us, as the ..... , and this dismissal has been affirmed by the additional district judge in appeal. the only point dealt with by the lower appellate court was that the suit was bad for multifariousness. as a matter of fact there had been an order by the predecessor in office of the learned judge who finally disposed of the appeal, which was no doubt well .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //